2:17-cv-10570
E.D. La.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Space Shipping filed a verified admiralty complaint and obtained a writ of foreign attachment against the M/T ALPINE ETERNITY and property aboard the vessel.
- The vessel is registered in the name of South Maritime Pte Ltd. (not a defendant); Space Shipping alleges ST Shipping & Transport Pte Ltd. is the vessel's beneficial owner and controls it.
- South Maritime moved to vacate the attachment under Supplemental Rule E(8), disputing ownership/control of the vessel.
- The parties agreed Defendants (ST Shipping PTE) own bunker fuel aboard the vessel worth $475,000 and stipulated to post satisfactory security for its release.
- At the Rule E(4)(f) post-arrest hearing, South Maritime presented evidence showing it is wholly owned by South Compass Maritime Pte. Ltd., not ST Shipping PTE.
- The court found plaintiff’s alter-ego allegations conclusory and insufficient to show probable cause that ST Shipping PTE controlled the vessel; the vessel was ordered released upon posting bond for the bunkers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule B attachment of the vessel is valid when registered owner is not a defendant | Space Shipping: ST Shipping PTE is the beneficial owner and in control; alter-ego relationship with South Maritime justifies attachment | South Maritime: Registered owner; no evidence ST Shipping PTE owns or controls South Maritime; alter-ego allegation conclusory | Attachment vacated as plaintiff failed to plead/furnish probable cause of alter-ego control or fraud |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for alter-ego to support attachment | Alleged ST Shipping PTE is "ultimate beneficial owner" and alleged 50% ownership | Movant: allegation is bare; documentary evidence shows no ST Shipping ownership; shared office insufficient | Pleading fails Rule 9(b)-type heightened requirement for alter-ego; conclusory statements insufficient |
| Standard at Rule E(4)(f) post-arrest hearing | Plaintiff must show probable cause for attachment to continue | Movant argues plaintiff cannot meet probable cause burden | Court applies probable cause standard and finds plaintiff did not meet it; vacatur ordered |
| Treatment of bunkers onboard the vessel | Plaintiff initially sought attachment of vessel and property | Parties stipulated Defendants own bunkers and to post $475,000 bond for release | Court ordered immediate execution of agreement and ordered bond posted; bunkers to be released upon security |
Key Cases Cited
- Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 2006) (describes Rule B attachment elements and burdens)
- Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership, 542 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule E post-arrest hearing may vacate attachment if requirements not met)
- Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009) (addresses limits on Rule B attachment doctrines)